Review of last call processor profile
comments.

Norm: Two substantive issues,
standalone and validation.
... What about standalone?
... What are the cases?
... No external decls, it's irrelevant
... External decls, standalone=no, (the default) that's a
validity constraint
... External decls, standalone=yes, then what we do is ok.

Henry: Perhaps we should ask
Michael if he made the same mistake that I did, that
standalone=no does not require a processor to read the external
declarations.
... We should also see if he made it more clear in his previous
comments what he wanted.

Alex: Reading Micheal's original
comment, I think there are two interpretations. One is that
these are things he thinks the XML Rec says and one is that
these are the things he would like *us* to say.

Norm: You think perhaps Micheal
is saying that *we* should enforce this behavior wrt to
standalone.
... The second issue he raises is validation, which he at least
agrees we improved.
... I think Micheal makes a good point that it would be easy to
read this spec and missunderstand that validation is
forbidden.
... I wonder if we could improve things by mentioning
validation in 2.3 and 2.4
... We could say in point 1 "non-validating or
non-valdating"

Henry: We could add a note that
says "this requirement is satisfied by any conformant
validating parser"

Murray returns the discussion to standalone
with the observation that the XML spec says there's an
algorithm for turning standalone=no into standalone=yes

Some discussion of how "algorithm" is to be
interpreted; does a validating parser suffice?

Norm: I'm not sure a validating
parser covers the case of an invalid but well-formed document
with standalone=no

Henry: I think my problem with
the standalone declaration is that it's a significant increase
in complexity for an area that's very little used.

Alex: What would standalone help
us with?

Norm: I'm not sure what Micheal
meant, so I'm not sure how to answer that.
... In the basic and id profiles, standalone is irrelevant
becase we don't read the external decls and it's a validity
constraint and a validating parser can't be used to do the
first two profiles.

Murray: I think what Michael is
saying is what I've been saying, validatity and standalone=no
are things that would change the result of processing.
... If you have a document that requires validation and/or
requires fetching external subsets is going to result in a
different document.
... And the truth value of that document changes depending on
whether you validate or not.

Henry: That's why we put in the
stuff about invariants, so we could be very clear that what you
get may change.
... Maybe we should make it clear that a validating processor
cannot implement 2.1 and 2.2 if the documents have an external
subset.
... Validating parsers *must* read the external
subset.

Norm: Murray, what do you want to
say about a standalone=no document with external decls if it's
parsed by a basic or id processor.

Murray: I think I just want to
say that you may have lost information.

Norm: I have no objection to
adding a note to that effect, I just don't think changing
behavior is within our remit.

Murray: I still think there
should be a profile that takes in an XML document which was
composed with a notion that it would be validated.
... so it's truth value would be determined by that
profile.
... But the WG doesn't agree with that position, that's fine. I
think that Michael feels the same way. I think the amelioriting
text will help.